DIS officers seek tribunal authority over Magosi
Mpho Mokwape | Monday April 13, 2026 06:00
In fresh court submissions, the group of 106 applicants led by Lucky Kgabeng shifts the focus away from calculations and payment disputes, insisting that the central issue before the Tribunal on Intelligence and Security is whether a state institution can ignore a court order without consequence.
“The rationale for contempt of court is that it is vital to the administration of justice that those who are affected by court orders obey them. Disregard to the court order cannot be tolerated,” the applicants state in their papers.
The officers trace the dispute back to 2020, when they first approached the High Court over unpaid employment benefits. The matter was later referred to the Tribunal, where both sides reached a settlement that was made an official consent order in 2022.
Under that agreement, the DIS was required to pay the officers based on calculations that were prepared by the agency itself. But the applicants argue that despite agreeing to those terms, the DIS failed to comply and has never corrected that failure through proper legal channels.
More so, the officers emphasise that the DIS has not denied non-compliance.
“The respondent does not deny that it has not paid the applicants in accordance to its own calculations and the terms of the consent order,” the papers state.
For the applicants, this removes any ambiguity about the facts of the case and leaves only one key question: whether such non-compliance can be excused.
“The sole question that begs an answer is whether the DIS has complied with the consent order. It is not disputed that DIS has not complied,” they argue.
Rather than focusing on the technical details of how payments were calculated or made, the officers argue that the Tribunal must prioritise the integrity of the justice system.
Quoting multiple legal authorities, they warn that allowing court orders to be ignored risks undermining judicial authority.
“Disobedience towards court orders risks rendering our courts impotent and judicial authority a mere mockery,” they state.
They further argue that contempt proceedings are designed not only to punish non-compliance but to compel obedience and protect the dignity of the courts.
“The object of contempt proceedings is to impose a penalty that will vindicate the court’s honour as well as to compel performance in accordance with the previous order,” the applicants say.
In their view, the DIS’s defence, based on explanations such as calculation errors, budget constraints, and procedural issues, misses the point entirely.
Instead, they accuse the agency of trying to avoid accountability through technical arguments, which they describe as “sterile formalism stating that all that the DIS does is an attempt to substitute substantive justice with sterile formalism.
They urge the Tribunal to reject this approach and focus on fairness and the enforcement of its own orders.
“Our submission is that the court must place substantive justice and fairness ahead of sterile formalism and ensure that the rule of law is safeguarded,” they state.
Another key argument raised by the applicants is that the DIS never attempted to legally correct the situation, saying that if there were genuine errors in the calculations, the agency should have applied to the Tribunal to vary the consent order.
Instead, the officers argue, the DIS acted unilaterally and only offered explanations after being challenged.
“It is also trite that the respondent never sought any variation of the consent order if there was any error,” the papers state.
This, they argue, shows a disregard for legal process and strengthens the case for contempt.
The officers also address the legal threshold for contempt, noting that once a court order, knowledge of that order, and non-compliance are established, the law presumes that the conduct was wilful and in bad faith.
They argue that all these elements are present in their case and that there is no dispute regarding the first two elements, and that there is no denial that the DIS has not complied.
According to them, the burden now shifts to the DIS to prove that its failure was not wilful or malicious. However, the applicants insist that the agency has failed to meet that burden.
They argue that DIS Director General Peter Magosi’s answering affidavit is replete with excuses and afterthoughts and go further, directly accusing the DIS of intentional disregard for the Tribunal’s authority.
“There is a case that exists. The respondent did intentionally disregard the authority of this Tribunal,” the papers state.
The officers also dismiss any suggestion that the matter is simply procedural, arguing that the consequences of non-compliance are serious and far-reaching.
They warn that if the Tribunal allows the DIS to escape sanction, it could set a dangerous precedent for how court orders are treated, particularly by state institutions.
“The overriding objective must be the attainment of justice between the parties and the protection of the rule of law,” they argue.
As part of their application, the officers are asking the Tribunal not only to declare the DIS in contempt but also to impose punitive costs. They say such an order is necessary to send a clear message that disobedience of court orders will not be tolerated.
“The Tribunal must censure this conduct, especially when it is done by a State body which exercises public power,” they state.
They support this argument by citing previous cases where courts imposed harsh penalties for similar conduct, emphasising that obedience to court orders is fundamental to a functioning legal system.
“The obedience of court orders is foundational to the rule of law and sound administration of justice,” they argue.
While Magosi has previously maintained that any non-compliance was unintentional and caused by administrative and budgetary challenges, the officers reject that explanation as irrelevant to the legal question at hand.
For them, the issue is not why the order was not followed, but the fact that it was not followed at all.
The Tribunal must now decide whether to accept the DIS’s explanations or to uphold the officers’ argument that the rule of law requires strict enforcement of its orders.
For the applicants, the stakes go beyond their individual claims, as the case will determine whether court orders carry real authority or can be ignored without consequence.
In their papers, the matter is ultimately about ensuring that “the rule of law is safeguarded” and that justice is not reduced to mere formality.